|
Vol 35.10 - Vayeira 2 Spanish French Audio Video |
| Hebrew Text:
Page 70 Page71 Page72 Page73 Page74 Page75 Chumash-Vayeira Tanach-Yechezkel
|
|
Summary:
|
|
Translation: 1. It states in the verse (Gen 19:24-25): “And the L-rd caused to rain down upon Sodom and Amorah brimstone and fire, from the L-rd, from heaven. And He turned over these cities and the entire plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and the vegetation of the ground.” Rashi on the verse states that the words: “And He turned over these cities, etc.” refers not just to Sodom and Amorah, that were mentioned in the previous verse, but on all the four cities in the valley, as it is explained in Parshat Nitzavim: “It is like the overturning of Sodom, Amorah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the L-rd overturned in His fury and in His rage” It is explained in the sefer Tzafnat Paneach on Torah (from the Rogotchover Gaon) that the reason for the difference between the punishment of Sodom and Amorah to that of Admah and Zeboiim where the first were burned from Heavenly fire, whereas Admah and Zeboiim were just overturned – was because:
This difference between the punishment of Sodom and Amorah to that of Admah and Zeboiim is proven also in the simple understanding of the verses. For the punishment of burning (brimstone and fire from Heaven) is mentioned just regarding Sodom and Amorah. Whereas regarding the overturning of the cities it states that: “He turned over these cities” (And this refers to the four cities, as aforementioned in Rashi‘s commentary). Therefore one must examine, what is the reason, according to the simple understanding of the verse for this difference? It is understood that the aforementioned explanation of the Tzafnat Paneach is not as aspect of the simple understanding of the verse, for according to the Pshat –
(Like the view in the Talmud that it is “because of ‘baldness’” (i.e., depopulation) – then there is no difference in this between burning or overturning, for the same logic also dictates that it not be destroyed in a manner of overturning. 2. This can be understood by prefacing an explanation of the precise wording of the verse (in the beginning of the topic): The verse states: "The cry concerning Sodom and Amorah is so great, and their sin is so very grave”. One must explore why just Sodom and Amorah are mentioned (explicitly) in the verse and not the other cities in the valley (and it is just Rashi that cites that there were five cities). “They were the heads of the kingdom” (and the other three were secondary to them). “For Since Sodom was a metropolis and the most important of them all, Scripture refers to her”. Therefore why does it also mention Amorah?" rel="">The Radak answers that: “They were the heads of the kingdom” (and the other three were secondary to them). “For Since Sodom was a metropolis and the most important of them all, Scripture refers to her”. Therefore why does it also mention Amorah? It therefore appears from this, that the main sinners were the people of Sodom and Amorah. And this is also the reason that it rained down brimstone and fire, just in Sodom and Amorah, as Rashi states on the verse that “When He comes to chastise (ליסר) mankind, He brings upon them fire from heaven”. In other words, the people of Sodom and Amorah, whose sin was great, died and were obliterated from the chastisement (יסוריס) of “fire from heaven”, whereas the people of the other cities were just destroyed through their being overturned. However this is not a sufficient answer: For from Rashi‘s commentary regarding Lot’s request “Behold now, this city is near to flee there” he states that:
This proves that, the measure of the two last cities (Admah and Zeboiim) was full. Therefore why were they not also punished through “fire from heaven”? 3. One could say that the explanation in this is according to Rashi’s previous commentary in Parshat Lech Lecha, in the explanation of the names of the kings: “Bera the king of Sodom . . Birsha the king of Amorah, Shineab the king of Admah, and Shemeber the king of Zeboiim”. Rashi states:
In the last two, their names emphasize, just the aspect of their rebelling against G-d (between G-d and man), whereas regarding “Bera” it states a double evil: evil to heaven and evil to people. Plainly, this is the explanation of “Bera” – “two (types) of evil (ב׳ (סוגי) רע - the Beit representing the numerical value of two). And according to the aforementioned, that which Rashi states afterward in the comment “Birsha: He was elevated in wickedness” – it is an addition to that of “Bera”. In other words, it means that even regarding “Birsha”, there were two types wickedness (״בי רשע״) – to heaven and to people. And that is why he is called “Birsha” (and not “Bera”) since “he was elevated in his wickedness”. One could say that this is also the difference between the wickedness of the people of these cities, in the two citing’s (of their punishment for their sins):
And on the contrary, the main wickedness of Sodom and Amorah, for which they were punished with such a severe punishment as this was (as it is explained in the verse) because:
4. According to this, the difference between the punishments of the cities, is understood, so much so that Rashi does not need to explain it, for it is understood from Rashi’s previous commentary: At the conclusion of Parshat Noach, Rashi explains the difference between the punishment of the Generation of the Flood to that of the generation of the Dor HaFlaga (Generation of Dispersion). Rashi states: “Now which sins were worse, those of the Generation of the Flood or those of the Generation of the Dispersion? The former did not stretch forth their hands against G-d, whereas the latter did stretch forth their hands against G-d, to wage war against Him. Nevertheless, the former were drowned, while the latter did not perish from the world. That is because the Generation of the Flood were robbers and there was strife between them, and therefore they were destroyed. But these behaved with love and friendship among themselves, as it is said: “one language and uniform words.” Thus you learn that discord is hateful, and that peace is great.” It is thus clear that the punishment of the Generation of the Flood, where they were drowned and obliterated, was mainly because they “were robbers and there was strife between them”. And this is also understood from Rashi’s commentary in the beginning of Parshat Noach on the verse “for the earth has become full of robbery” that “Their verdict was sealed only because of robbery”. In other words, even though they also sinned with immorality and idol worship, as Rashi explains there itself, that the word “corrupt” (חמם) is “an expression of immorality and idolatry”. So much so that this was the cause of the punishment in a manner that "The end of all flesh has come before Me” and as Rashi explains: “Wherever you find promiscuity and idolatry, a pestilence comes upon the world and kills both good and bad alike”. Nevertheless, their verdict was sealed only because of robbery”. The reason for this is explained in the commentators: Robbery and strife are the opposite of settling the world (יישובו של עולם), and it returns the world to chaos (לתהו). And it appears, in the intent of the words, that the flood was not just a severe punishment for severe sins, but rather that its aspect was like a regret (כעין חרטה) for the entire creation of man and the world. For the conduct of the created beings, brought it to such a point, that G-d, as it were, regretted the entire Creation. Therefore, He destroyed the world that He created, in a manner of “blotting out all beings etc.” (וימח) – a compete obliteration (איבוד מוחלט). And this is why the main reason for this decree was robbery and strife, for only a conduct that is in a manner that returns the world to chaos, the opposite of settling the world, is that which opposes the essence of Creation. According to this one could explain the double aspect in the verse, namely:
"The end of all flesh” refers to the punishment to the sinners for the magnitude of their sin. And since it is speaking of promiscuity and idol worship, the punishment is in a manner of “The end of all flesh” as Rashi states: “pestilence etc. that kills both good and bad alike”. (And a punishment like this is not limited to the time of the flood, yet this is like the precise wording of Rashi that “Wherever you find promiscuity and idolatry etc.” Whereas through the “the earth has become full of Chamas” (the sin of robbery), it is: “behold I am destroying them from the earth”. This is as Rashi explains that: “the earth” means “together with the earth. For even the three handbreadths of the depth of the plowshare were blotted out and obliterated”. Thus the actual earth was obliterated, for this thing was because the flood was not just a punishment for the sinners but it was an aspect of obliterating the actual earth (the opposite of the Creation of the world). According to all this one can also understand how it refers to our case – the punishment of Sodom and Amorah etc.: The difference between the purpose of “brimstone and fire .. from heaven” to the overturning of the cities is, that with the overturning of the cities, the inhabitants of the cities were killed and also the plants of the earth were destroyed. Yet this was not an obliteration of the earth itself. And this is the reason for the addition in this, that “it rained down brimstone and fire“ for in addition to the chastisement of the people, the main additional aspect was that, with this, the cities were burnt and completely destroyed (נשרפו הערים ונשחתו כליל) (similar to “behold I am destroying them from the earth”, through the flood). Therefore this punishment was placed just on Sodom and Amorah, for their primary sin was between man and his fellow (similar to the punishment of the generation of the flood, in that they “were robbers and there was strife among them”). Whereas with Admah and Zeboiim, since their primary sin was between man and G-d – they were punished just with overturning. 5. According to Pnimiyut one could say: The reason for the punishment of Sodom and Amorah, in that they were completely obliterated and destroyed, is explained in Chassidut: The conduct of Sodom, was the opposite of peace and unity – similar to the word of Tohu (chaos). For in Tohu “each one is for himself, separate branches” (כל א׳ בפני עצמו, ענפין מתפרדין) and this is the reason for the one who states that “One who says ‘What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours’ -- others say that this is the character of a Sodomite”. For the essence of the aspect of division and separateness from one another is like the world of Tohu, separate branches. And this is the aspect of the destruction of Sodom and Amorah etc., for it is similar to the “breaking” (שבירה) of the world of Tohu (as the Sages state that “He created worlds and destroyed them (שהי׳ בורא עולמות ומחריבן). For the purpose is, “destroying for the sake of building” (סותר ע״מ לבנות) - in order to create the world of Tikkun (rectification) whose aspect is a world of inclusion and unity etc. However, the main purpose and intent is that in the “Keilim” (receptacles) of Tikkun, the “lights of Tohu” (אורות דתהו) should also be drawn down and revealed. For they are loftier than measure and boundary. However when they are in the “Keilim of Tikkun”, there is no aspect of division and breaking, but rather, on the contrary, the epitome of unity etc. According to this one can explain what it states in Yechezkel that in the Future: “I shall return their captivity and the captivity of Sodom and her daughters”. For one could say that the inner intent of the return and building of these cities is, that in the time of the Geulah, the lights of Tohu will be revealed. However, at that time, these lights will be drawn specifically into the Keilim of Tikkun (building, the opposite of breaking). And this is also reflected in what is stated in the Midrash (on the verse): “I found David My servant” – “Where did I find him? – in Sodom”. For, at first glance, this is puzzling. How is it possible that David – King Moshiach – specifically has a relation to Sodom? However, this is because of the inner virtue in it, the revelation of the lights of Tohu. Therefore “I found him in Sodom”, specifically. For this is the aspect of David, king Moshiach (דוד מלכא משיחא), that through him there will be a revelation of the lights of Tohu (which are above measure and boundary), however, they will be drawn specifically into the Keilim of Tikkun. And according to this perhaps one can say that this is the innermost essence, in a positive manner (התוכן הפנימי למעליותא), for the two types of cities of Sodom and its daughter cities, that they will be settled in the Future:
M'Sichas Shabbat Parshat Vayeira and Chayei Sara 5743, Parshat Noach, 5742
|
| Links: Gutnick Chumash pp. 70ff |
| Date Delivered: | Reviewer: | ||
| Date Modified: | Date Reviewed: | ||
| Contributor: |